\section{Analysis of Interview with Dirk Trossen}
\label{sec:dirktrosseninterview}
The involvement in different ICN implementations like PSIRP/PURSUIT as a technical manager increases the validity and reliability of Dirk Trossen as an interviewee. Furthermore, his contribution to different research papers about ICN adds more validity to his statements. He can be also without doubt classified as an expert with his 10 years experience in the field of network architectures\footnote{\url{http://icst.org/dirk-trossen/}}.

His involvement in projects like PSIRP/PURSUIT makes him more valid source to interview because he has in-depth knowledge about the implementation of ICN and also it was very important for us to interview somebody who actually has a running ICN implementation.

\subsection{Motivations and Incentives for ICN deployment}
\label{subsec:dirkmotivation}
Dirk Trossen explains his own motivation for making ICN research:
\begin{quote}
\textit{``The reason we started in 2008 was: if you think about disseminating information, then the usage of computation and storage, which is what you do in CDNs, is very inefficiently supported only. And a way to make CDNs work is all about a way of intersecting HTTP level calls, do IP packet inspection. All of that leads to a significant inefficiency. So when we started, we recognized that if you take computation, storage and communication as three parameters of solving a problem, there is potentially a better way of doing it than the current way the Internet does. So it really was driven by efficiency and improved scalability as well as new applications - not necessarily making the current applications better.''} (Appendix \ref{app:dirktrossen}: 04:45)
\end{quote} 

\noindent So actually the inefficiency of CDNs was their main motivation for looking into ICN. Also, he argues that another incentive for ICN deployment is that it is a better approach for improving computation and communication in cloud services:
\begin{quote}
\textit{``I believe that ICN is a better approach of doing [communication and computation]. It has to do with the fact that it has underlying network that is information aware, which the current cloud computing doesn't have. Current cloud computing has a nature that is not information aware. Therefore optimizing the communication is harder. [...]. If you want to come to similar point of operation, you will spend more energy in a cloud computing scenario today than if you would run it on the top of the ICN.''}(Appendix \ref{app:dirktrossen}: 26:00)
\end{quote}
When talking about deployment of ICN into the society, he adds that
\begin{quote}
\textit{``the first part, the PSIRP part, had a migration and deployment study. And that was largely driven because at that time I was part of BT, and BT as an operator is obviously very interested in how can you deploy the technology. Having a very blunt answer and saying: ``throw away the old boxes and deploy these new fancy boxes'' is not a very good answer. So therefore BT was very interested on how you migrate.''} (Appendix \ref{app:dirktrossen}: 06:15)
\end{quote}
This clearly depicts that besides public and  volunteer interest there is also private interest in the deployment of ICN possibly because the telecom industry can see some future economic potential. Also, when discussing the migration to ICN network, he emphasises the importance of a business perspective by saying,
\begin{quote}
\textit{``I think what's more interesting is: how do you migrate from a business model perspective?''} (Appendix \ref{app:dirktrossen}: 06:15)
\end{quote} 

\noindent There must be some business incentives (with some possibilities of flourishing new business models) to push the deployment of ICN. Furthermore, he clearly points that market players are powerful regime actors to enforce ICN deployment. He clarifies this by stating:
\begin{quote}
\textit{``[...] who are the market players taking it up? May be one could think of equipment vendors, but on the other hand equipment vendors make a lot of money selling today's infrastructure, and therefore there is no directly very clear route to take equipment vendors to convince them to invest in new equipment to be manufactured and sold that is not a very straight forward route.''} (Appendix \ref{app:dirktrossen}: 10:22)
\end{quote}  
From the above statement it is also seen that the regime actors do not have any incentives in transiting from host-centric regime to information-centric regime, which can be supported by \cite{GEELS} where they explain that moderate landscape change cannot put enough pressure on the regime to enable a transition, unless it is supported by regime actors. In the existing Internet regime, various market players act as powerful regime actors. Furthermore, despite of the criticism from external actors regarding negative externalities, internal actors can act as stabilizers in the existing regime.

\subsection{Institutional Behaviour}
\label{subsec:instbehav}
As described by \cite{JOOP}, an institutional design in a complex system is adapted overtime and in the process of its development. Similarly, the institutional design of the Internet (as a complex system) has developed gradually overtime, and arguably it still has some deficiencies. Deficiencies in the sense that it is still missing perfect hierarchy due to which there is a possible coordination problem. As described by Koppenjan and Groenewegen, this coordination problem leads to strategic uncertainty where different actors behave in regard of their own benefits. Dirk Trossen did not explicitly describe the institutional performances and coordination but when he came with the following statement:

\begin{quote}
\textit{``So, who were the industries that were potentially more likely to adopt the technology? It does not go after the ``what is well known'' like IP, it just goes straight for something new. Which is also a psychological issue. And that is certainly a barrier to the adoption of any new technology. The other thing that we also identified, is who are the market players taking it up? ''} (Appendix \ref{app:dirktrossen}: 09:58)
\end{quote}

\noindent it could be depicted as an existence of an institutional coordination problem between the market players and the academic or volunteer organizations, where academic researches argue that ICN is an optimal solution, but market players do not have any incentives regarding its deployment.

Furthermore, from his explanation  below it can be concluded that different academic and research organizations were working under common ground for the deployment of ICN.
\begin{quote}
\textit{``Yes, at the same time as we did efforts, the community also grew. First of all there were other projects that received funding and we collaborate with them and with PURSUIT we had common workshops,but some of the newer projects that were funded, they approached us and said:``well would you like do something?'' and we organized workshops, exchanged how we do things. That is quite common at the same projects generally FP7 projects are encouraged and sometimes are forced to do it, because obviously they are supposed to talk to each other.''}(Appendix \ref{app:dirktrossen}: 15:27)
\end{quote}
 
\noindent As per Geels and Schot's explanation, these organizations can be seen as external actors trying to exert pressure on the current Internet regime, whereas the CDNs and other market players act as internal regime actors who intend to stabilize the existing regime.

\subsection{Innovation Characteristics}
As described by \cite{FARIBORZ}, coordination regarding innovation between an administrative and a technical system is necessary to maintain the balance in the socio-technical system, but from the analysis in the section \ref{subsec:instbehav} it is clear that there is not a proper coordination between the administrative and technical systems. This leads to a possible knowledge gap in the development of niche-innovation. \bigskip

\noindent With the following statement, Dirk Trossen also supports Schumpeter's theory of creative destruction.
\begin{quote}
\textit{``If you want to utilize the full potential, you obviously have to deploy more of the native one and less on the overlay one.'' }(Appendix \ref{app:dirktrossen}: 13:37)
\end{quote}

\begin{quote}
\textit{``[...] there are very easy scenarios that we also created where you will not only stretch but most certainly have CDNs fail compared to the efficiency that you can achieve from the ICN. [...] so, we have created those scenarios where we said: it is even in that the relatively boring level of content dissemination where you can easily show that in a similar deployment scenario, an ICN significantly outperformed a CDN based one.'' }(Appendix \ref{app:dirktrossen}: 19:03)
\end{quote}

\noindent These statements and the statement about ICN outperforming cloud computing inherently support the theory of creative destruction. The deployment of ICN would replace CDNs and cloud computing (in the sense of computing and communication), which is against the interests of some of the existing regime actors. These actors can thereby act as a possible barriers in the deployment of ICN. \bigskip

\noindent Dirk Trossen did not characterize the type of innovation for ICN explicitly. But a lot can be drawn from his expressions, where he discuss ICN being deployed as an overlay on top of IP. He provides an old example of dial-up  Internet as being an overlay on the top of the telephony system to support his statement. This can be related to an incremental innovation, which will provide a migration path for the vendors and users and minimise the switching cost. Dirk Trossen also explains the benefits of incremental deployment of ICN from an infrastructure perspective:
\begin{quote}
\textit{``If you want to go for native deployment, that means that you will have optimized forward into that work, that means that you will have to replace the equivalent of today's routers. If that is not your deployment, then you just overlay - there is no change in the network, and everything happens to be done by highly powerful engineers. That is what we do today. Our international test network is an overlay network on behalf of rather powerful server machines that are in our ICN forward - they are not in our network - they are the edge of the network. So the modifications are actually little to none.''} (Appendix \ref{app:dirktrossen}: 13:37)

\end{quote}
Seeing ICN as an overlay enables us to characterize it as a component innovation rather than an architectural innovation. This provides a migration path towards the development of a new Internet paradigm from the old Internet paradigm, where ICN is initially adopted by the existing regime as an add-on. ICN may slowly add up to major reconfigurations and regime change. \bigskip

\noindent Dirk Trossen presented relative advantages of ICN over the current Internet and also confirmed its backward compatibility with current Internet architecture (Appendix \ref{app:dirktrossen}: 9:58). Nevertheless, the level of complexity, trailability and observability is first possible to assess when it is at least deployed at niche level. \bigskip

\noindent At last Dirk Trossen explains very explicitly about the impact of path dependence in the Internet. He explains how the decisions made in the past have led us to an inferior standard (IP Standard).
\begin{quote}
\textit{``Actually, the IP was one of the later candidates in the current Internet. And it was actually, at the time it came out, one of the least desirable ones. Even in hindsight, you still find people say it was probably also the worst choice. I just saw a presentation two days ago where the presenter very explicitly was making the point that the IP of that time of the decision was political choice and it was not the technically best choice.''} (Appendix \ref{app:dirktrossen}: 21:35)
\end{quote}
This goes hand in hand with what Stango defines as a lock-in where an adopted standard does not perform as efficiently as an alternative. From this we can argue that the selection of a certain technology is not only dependent on the optimal performance but also highly influenced by decisions from non-technical actors or social actors.

